>>49450304 Depends. If I'm writing towards the pop end of rock, I'll usually let my chords inform my melody, I'll swap things round as I get into the artier side of rock, or into metal (especially as functional harmony starts to break down). If I'm writing jazz pr classical, I usually start with the skeleton of harmony, use that to write the skeleton of a melody, then go back over the harmony and use what little melody I've come up with to inform how I'll colour it and make it more interesting, then in turn, I'll use my richer harmony to inform how I ornament my melody.
I did a reharmonization of 'stand by me' in C which started off normal (||: C | C | Am | Am | F | G7 | C | C :||), then went:
>>49451247 >Bb13omit5 Nigga what kind of chord is this. What does the "omit" mean exactly?
Also guys, concerning pop music; I usually can come up with a melody and chord progression am satisfied with, but turning it into a full song is where it gets really difficult for me. If I keep it chorus-verse-chorus I end up thinking it's too repetitive and hate it, yet if I try to add anything I feel I'm adding just for the sake of mixing it up and hate it anyways. I know you're supposed to just let it "flow" and the song will let you know what it needs, but I can't get out of that over-thinking mindset.
Same thing with adding vocals. I can never add vocals that don't mimic the original piano melody I came up with.
>>49451863 What I do is I write it up into a program like guitar pro or sibelius and arrange around that. Another good thing to do is to come up with a whole bunch of melodies over the same progression and use a couple of the best ones
>>49451961 I usually just make a melody on my keyboard and add chords to it, and then just try to let the song flow from there. But I always feel awkward trying to make sections go together. Feels contrived. I think I just have too little self-esteem.
Here's one I've been working on: http://clyp.it/lzbs5kox
>>49451784 And one more for y'all. this is a neat way to modulate between semi-distant keys - it's not strictly 15th century harmony (so it's not like you couldn't just truckdriver those modulation if you wanted), but it's pretty smooth.
>From Amaj -> Cmaj: || A - Ab | C/E - Ebmaj7 | Db/F - Fm | Bdim7 - Fdim/B || C
Then you can take it onwards to the middle key (in this case, Gmaj):
>>49452044 How is that irrelevant? You've said that it's silly to have 2 types of Bs in the same chord progression, and that's just plain wrong. Regardless of the length of the chord progression, it's perfectly normal to include non-diatonic notes from borrowed chords, secondary dominants, tritone subs, etc. The length of the progression is irrelevant - Plenty of 4-chord pop songs do this all the time.
>>49452012 I write prog so I generally have to have everything meticulously planned, but if you're going for poppy then generally verse/chorus is the way to go, even though I personally think it sucks.
I personally try and make each piece a journey from start to finish, and depending on what mood the next section will change. I find I have a problem of having a few too many enormous explosions but I like those so hey who cares.
But obviously if you're writing pop music that's irrelevant, I just think that writing pop music is dumb personally
>>49452129 In any kind of diatonic harmony, the minor third sound of the A# would be prevalent, making calling it A# instead of Bb and using an accidental for the natural redundant. If we were analysis it in a post-tonal sense then the A# would make more sense, but in diatonic harmony a sharp 2 with just sound like a minor third.
Help me understand guys. Could you theoretically use >>49450244 and put your own melody over it and make it your own song? Wouldn't the fact that these progressions have been used before make it plagiarism to use them?
>>49452233 Harmony has specific function which makes things work - everyone has been using the same chord progressions for the last 400 years. Literally every composer of the common practice period used I - IV - V - I at some point in some way.
>>49452233 There are so many elements of a song that you can use a chord progression so many times before running out of ideas. It's when you use more than a few elements of a song (including melody, tempo, structure, genre, timbres) you've got a problem. And that rarely happens by coincidence
>>49452347 Also, it helps to break it down into steps. Start with the triad, build up the extensions, raise/lower accidentals, shift suspensions, put it in the correct inversion. I find that makes it much easier.
>>49452371 I'd love you to help me spice up/reharmonise a chord prog I was working on, if you're offering.
Currently it goes pic related, but it feels very flat.
It needs to maintain tension on the first and third, and release on the second, last, and (less so) on the fourth, but feel free to tweak the melody I've written over the top if you need to, but. I just need help giving it more 'pull', and making it jazzy and filled with all those juicy extensions and alterations.
Feel free to ignore the bass-line if it confuses you.
>>49452530 Ok, is there like a basic set of guidelines for coming up for chords under a melody?
I normally know the key from the rest of the song, but regularly I have no clue what to put under it. I can't just make chords of the melody because then the vocals are just root notes and that sounds gay. Do I just fuck around until it sounds good?
>>49452799 No the guy you asked, but as long as the chords relate to the notes in the melody, and follow a Tonic->Predominant->Dominant structure, it should work fine. Look at this wiki, or this image for guidance. Keep in mind, both resources are simplistic, and you can go a lot more complicated with extensions and whatnot after you've gotten that down.
>>49453019 Technically yes. 7sus4 certainly makes more logical sense as far as note position goes, I'm just used to the bass note being the root. I've seen sus2sus4 is some chordbooks, so I guess it has some validity to it.
>>49453081 But surely first-inversions are less unusual than double-suspensions?
Like, I'm sure it's a valid way to name the chord, but it feels like jumping through unnecessary loops to try and force the chord to function as though it were built of of C, when it really doesn't feel like it is.
i changed the melody slightly in the 2nd and 3rd bar, but the significant changes came in the harmony.
i'm a mostly classical composer, so i apologize if this isnt what you had in mind, but as far as building tension, releasing tension, and flowing through the chromaticism of the final bar i believe this is a pretty 'juicy' and abstractly 'jazzy' chord progression. i've labled the chords and added the extra bar to show that the progression does indeed resolve into itself (although you can easily modulate from there too)
>>49453612 It sounds very dissonant to my ears. You've got a B in the melody clashing with the Bb in both the second, third, and fourth chords, a G in the melody clashing with the chordal G# in the third bar, an F# clashing with the G in the fourth chord, and an A# in the melody clashing with the chordal A in the fifth chord. Are you sure you haven't git it set to a transposed instrument or something?
>>49453853 Sorry, I'm used to dissonance, (see my reharmonization of 'Stand By Me' here (>>49451247), but frankly I don't consider any of your take on my chord prog usable. Sorry, but there's just nothing to tie the melody to the harmony at all, and the Phrygian Dominant feel is completely lost.
>>49454034 Well yeah, feel free. It's a fine progression on it's own (though, I personally would tweak it to ||: Dm - C7 | G#7 - Ebmaj7 | C6 - A7 :||, it just sat very awkwardly against the melody you tweaked.
>>49455167 Nah, it's what the melody was written in, and I wanted the chords not to detract from that. The chords are welcome to have notes that aren't diatonic to that mode, but it shouldn't endanger the cohesion of the melody.
>>49455167 You don't need to memorise those sorts of things. Just google them if you're confused. Just so long as you know how they're constructed, so you'd know what to play if someone said "the fifth mode of the harmonic minor scale".
>>49455293 S'all good. If it's any comfort, that kind of thing is not really something you have to think about outside of jazz or music that's trying to sound foreign. For the most part, major, the various minors, and the modern Western modes are all you need.
>>49455415 >>49455501 Jazz harmony is unfortunately a whole different beast. Even I don't fully get it. the skeleton of it is a lot of 2-5-1 and stacked secondary dominants, then you colour it with extensions, tritone subs, standard reharm, etc.
I'm afraid I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head that has a good ground-up tutorial. You might try http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/107-Jazz-Arranging-Online-by-Prof-Chuck-Israels
are there any general rules to writing piano parts? i'm writing a tune and i feel like theres some ok ideas there but anyone who actually played the piano would laugh at my poor playing/compositional ability, it sounds like it needs to be more developed in some way. i'm going for a minimalist feel but it's getting the balance between minimalism and blandness.
>>49455835 That's not strictly true. While obviously inversions aren't going to make a difference with diminished chords (though, I'd argue that they do with augmented chords), how you space out your various voices still plays an important role texturally.
>>49455867 True, voice leading and what you put in each voice does make a huge success. Makes me kind of whick I actually played the piano. What kind of modulation to you like the most? Especially getting to not vlosely related keys.
>>49455885 Did you even read the thread? There's been some interesting, informed discussion amongst the ignorance.
>>49455873 I don't know... I don't think it's too bad. I mean, clearly, it's not meant to be playing too convoluted a role, I think it's pretty fine how it is at least for that short segment - it's how you develop from the ideas that you've come up with there and make a whole piece from it that's the tricky part.
I can see it becoming a really cool piece if you let it grow organically, and build up the texture, adding more and more chromaticism as you go.
>>49455913 Fair enough. I just figured that it would have more 'pull' and tension/release if you didn't dilute the dominant function so much, but maybe that's not what you were going for.
>>49455933 thats what i was aiming towards i guess. it's more of a "mood" piece than something that's meant to grab attention, i was just going to play around with that motif throughout the whole track. the piano part coming in would be the "peak" it just still sounds a bit too weak for me. at least it's not wrong ~~
the pads not done at all, going to slowly add more layers too it throughout the track, some granular synthesis, play around with some binaural processing and have that as a slowly developing "bed" to the track, the sound design and structure is going to be more the "meat" of the track than anything traditionally musical.
But in general I'm not too big on common-chord modulations unless they're done through secondary dominants (I find it hard to fit phrases across them neatly). One thing that's quite cool is when you throw a bunch of simultaneous chromatic mediants into your progression. You start with the ones that make the most sense in your original key in a pattern, and then once the ear gets used to the chromatic mediant pattern, you can continue it as far out of the original key as you like. I'll show you an example once I'm finished working out >>49455954
>>49456006 Alright. 8vbtreble tenor is fine with you?
>>49456028 >the piano part coming in would be the "peak" it just still sounds a bit too weak for me
I agree. It sounds more like an intro to me. You're using very tight chords (and demichords). I think you should build it up from there, keeping it just as sparse as it is, but working the full spectrum of the keyboard. Filling out your chords with extension and working in some more chromaticism as it progresses. Don't make it 'busy', just make it 'full'.
>>49456030 that would be perfect. I enjoy using a bunch of secondary dominants and then modulating by sequence as well as a little chromatic modualtion, Mostly because that is the most advanced types of modualtion I have been taught hahaha.
bt in F cleff and as in G cleff would be great. Standard four part is easiest fpor me to punch with my lack of piano skill.
>>49456093 >bt in F cleff and as in G cleff. Oh God, okay, I'll try.
I'm used to Sop in treble, Bass in bass, and Tenor either in 8vb treble or tenor, and Alto in either treble or alto. Alternatively, Sop Alt in treble, Ten Bass in Bass. Funny how conventions are still taught differently all over.
>>49456006 I like it. My only two criticisms are that the tension kind of drops on the ii6, and the last two chords feel sort of tacked-on. It would work perfectly well just as: ||: I - I+ | ii6 - V7 | V65 - vi :|| and since the bass notes are free to jump around, and it's still got that leap of a fourth despite the inverted 2 chord (E - E - A - B - D#), I figure why not make a show of the leap, and keep the ii in root position so that the D# looks like a recovery from the big F# -> B leap.
Since I felt like your ii chord needed a little tension (and I was already taking liberties by removing it's inversion, I figured why not try to play it as an actual 6 chord.
Here's the result.
Again, personally, I'd use those last two chords to modulate, since they don't seem to be doing much for the arch of the progression - but it's up to you.
Also, consider a key where you don't need a double sharp on your V+.
>>49456430 That's ||: C - Ab | B - G | Bb - Gb | E7 - C# :||
The trick is establishing a patter n (in this case, it's 'down a major third -> up a minor third', repeating it, then breaking it for a Dominant 7th which you could have reached from your tonic by chromatic mediant (in this case C -> up a major third to E), then you can either resolve how you normally would if the dominant 7 was a V7 (in this case it would be E7 -> A for a medium-sized C -> A modulation) or by chromatic mediant as though you never broke the pattern (in this case E7 -> down a minor third to C# for a massive C->C# modulation).
>>49456989 There could have been. If it was functioning particularly as a C# rather than a Db, it might have made more sense, but this sort of chromatic-mediant movement is pretty far out from typical functional harmony, so there's not much point trying to pin each chord's function down (except for the cadential V7 - I's between each key).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.